Ordo Templi Orientis
background information

Honesty Is The Best Policy

In October 2005 I sent the owners of an Australian website named gaiaguys.net an address-list for the Australian branch of the O.T.O. Why?

Previous History

The two proprietors of this website were of the opinion that there were paedophile rings made up of Freemasons and Satanists, believing that occult child-abusers could be found at every important level of politics, the law, and the police, where their influence prevented any prosecutions. This conspiracy-theory grew up mainly in the USA in the 1980s, but after some time spread to pretty much every country on the planet. In a nutshell, people came to believe in an apparently consistent theory concocted out of various bits of fact and fantasy: individual claims, unattributable plots, and particularly a number of well-known organisations. It seemed certain things could be deduced from this — the existence of specific groups, youths vandalising and desecrating cemeteries, individuals engaged in criminal activities, and paedophilia — so suggesting that there was a far-reaching conspiracy in whose coils almost anyone might be caught. A host of otherwise unconnected names and organisations were introduced into this ramshackle mixture of fact, theory, opinion, fantasy and paranoia, as new information. New-age religions and occult orders were lumped together under the labels of ‘Satanism’ and ‘Paedophilia.’

This sort of attributing guilt by association is not so far removed from racism, persecuting minorities, and antisemitism. Viewed rationally, most of these ‘revelations’ are irrelevant, but in association with media exposés they are still questionable (if not actually dangerous) because they are promoted through blatant information-manipulation.

But to return to the owners of gaiaguys.net: they publicly asserted that the O.T.O. was part of a paedophile network, besides both opining that all Aleister Crowley’s writings and O.T.O. literature was harmful and sexually doubtful. As a result, in 2004 they published articles on their website — a vast accumulation of fact and fantasy — which further advanced their claims that judges, lawyers, policemen, media figures and politicians were all part of the plot and that this conspiracy was the reason that the O.T.O. was able to carry out its alleged dark machinations. The Gaiaguys maintained that the O.T.O. practised human sacrifice and murdered infants; soon they were besieging politicians, prosecutors and child-protection organisations in Australia with their supposed revelations of the O.T.O’s alleged crimes. Consequently, two local Australian O.T.O. members filed suit
in February 2005.
When the case was tried in 2005, however, neither of the owners of gaiaguys.net appeared in court to support their claims. They were found guilty in absentia of being unable to prove their accusations, and ordered to pay compensation. For the Gaiaguys the circumstances of their being found guilty was just more proof that the O.T.O. was undermining justice, the entire police-force, and political leaders, as well as the entire media. Meanwhile the Gaiaguys’ US server refused to take down their website, which cost the O.T.O. a lot of money.

These events induced me to get in touch with the Gaiaguys, because:
1. As a researcher and publicist of the O.T.O. phenomenon, I’m interested in material. As the proprietors of the Gaiaguys website were publicly involved in a court case concerning the O.T.O., I wanted to look into all the evidence.
2. Also at this time I was co-authoring a book with lawyer Andreas Huettl; we used police, state prosecutor and court evaluations of the evidence to try and clear up child-abuse and ritual murderer cases which had been sensationalised by journalists, writers, and religious spokesmen.

So I contacted both owners of the Gaiaguys website and informed them that I had no knowledge of any paedophile ring, either in the O.T.O. or among its membership. In due course they sent me a whole boxful of documentation, and in return on October 2nd 2005 I sent the Gaiaguys a list of people belonging to the O.T.O. which I had been compiling for some years from various sources; information which I thought anyone with an interest in the O.T.O. already had.
So I was hoping for evidence of accurate research and analysis from the Gaiaguys owners — namely that they could prove that there really were all these judges, lawyers, police, media moguls and politicians inside the O.T.O., as they’d claimed — which was why I had given them a comprehensive list of names and addresses. Otherwise I was putting myself at some risk of seeming to spread manipulated data of the sort fostered by the Gaiaguys’ conspiracy-fantasies. For me this list had no more significance than as a study-tool, and was not provided with the intention that it should be published.

“Oh, the world’s so big,/ And my head’s so cramped!” — Wilhelm Busch

Not long after they received my list, a link to an address-list was published on the Gaiaguys website. I quickly requested that this list be shut down, and also sent out an e-mail to the O.T.O.’s main protagonists to put them in the picture about these events, expressing my regrets over the Gaiaguy’s actions, and offering to make them public.

"Never trust an occultist"— Ellic Howe

In the spring of 2006 the book I’d been writing in collaboration with Andreas Huettl was published: it was called ‘SATAN – Jünger, Jäger und Justiz’ which can be translated as ‘Satan – Disciples, Hunters and Justice.’ The book goes into more detail about the happenings surrounding the Gaiaguys.

At the same time William Breeze, chief of the O.T.O.’s American ‘Mother Lodge’, and Stephen King, his Australian representative, brought a legal case against me: it was for allegedly breaking data-protection laws, and both were demanding damages.
The plaintiffs claimed that I had neglected to adhere to Swiss data-protection rules which at this time still had legal force.

“Things fall apart,/ The centre cannot hold” — W.B. Yeats

The data-protection law at this time actually regulated the transfer of collections of data to certain countries, and simply required that a standard formula of notification be provided. This law was never meant to prevent the transfer of data, only that data-protection agencies should be informed of its transfer. The agencies just needed to be informed that the data was in circulation, and were not empowered to stop that data being circulated.

During his (according to his own description) “exhaustive” representations on behalf of his clients, Breeze and King’s lawyer seemed to have overlooked that he was dealing with a matter which was evident without another lawyer's consultation:
1. The data-protection provided for a couple of exceptions at this time.
2. A revision of this specific point of law was in progress.

Point one:
There were exceptions for private individuals: the transfer to Australia was permissible, since Australia and Switzerland had similar data-protection rules.
As far as media were concerned, whoever published in a periodical was legally exempt from a duty to report data-transfers — and any regularly updated website was counted as a periodical publication.

“They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” — Hosea, 8:7.

In response to the Swiss state prosecutor’s summons on November 19th 2007, among others I adduced following facts:

The plaintiffs Breeze and King had already published their own addresses innumerable times both online and in print. For example, at http://www.fastbooks.com.au/spirit.html, and in the magazines ‘The Magical Link,’ ‘beastly,’ and ‘laylah,’ at the trademark register http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au, and with links leading to further addresses at http://www.otoaustralia.org.au/contacts.htm and http://oto-usa.org/intrl.html. These facts are of note, since they weren’t mentioned in the plaintiff’s original petition.

Since Breeze and King had stated that the address-list was a ‘religious confession’ and thus was more ‘sensitive’ information than any other mere collection of data, I showed that the O.T.O. was essentially a club or association that organised self-help seminars, conducted rôle-playing exercises, and published books and playing-cards in support of these ends; in Australia this association is registered as a business (http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/, http://www.search.asic.gov.au, and http://www.abr.business.gov.au). If — in spite of these facts — some sort of association between religious denomination and the O.T.O. as a group could still be said to exist, then it was doubtful what kind of religion this would be, as according to statements previously made under oath by Breeze, members of the O.T.O. actually come from many different religious denominations.

Public interest in the O.T.O. persists, which is evinced in innumerable publications about certain antidemocratic, antisemitic statements and texts that could be said to interfere with religious freedoms. Besides this there remains a suspicion that certain O.T.O. rôle-plays offend against Swiss animal-protection laws. Regarding Crowley's antidemocratic, racist and misanthropic writings, followers point out: "The reason [...] aspects of Thelema are omitted [in public discussion] indicates the actual problem with presenting Thelema as a religion and attempting to get Thelema sanctioned by the government or approved by the public: Thelema is ultimately in contrast to and transgressive of normative society. Thelema rejects the morals and values of normative society and acts to transgress and violate these norms. From the inclusion of intoxicants in ritual, to the positive view of sexuality, which frequently is seen as promoting promiscuity, to the pro–authoritarian and Nietzschian aspects of Thelema, normative society has much to reject in Thelema and conversely, Thelema encourages its adherents to reject most aspects of normative society." See The Templar's Reich.

There is academic opinion that public adherence to this group
improves the member's positive self-image especially when the public's reaction is problematic. (See Claudia Kowalchyk: A study of two 'deviant' religious groups: The Assemblies of God and the Ordo Templi Orientis, NY 1994).

It was never proved that the address-list was ever accessible through the Gaiaguys website. The plaintiff’s lawyer did not submit any screenshots of the former Gaiaguys homepage.

[After they repeatedly failed to appear before the judge, at the end of 2007 the Gaiaguys were imprisoned for contempt of court. Eventually, they removed their website and were released.]

Point 2:
The revision of the data-protection law mentioned earlier duly came into effect, and I was cleared on August 13th 2008. Since they'd lost their case, William Breeze and Stephen King were left to pay their own lawyer's bills, while I got financial compensation. I have a very good legal insurance policy, which means I can face litigation with confidence; my expenses here amounted to zero.
Breeze had blithely assumed from the start that he would win — this was why, on the 17th of July, a month before he lost against me — he announced publicly that his OTO was "litigation free" (http://www.oto.org/news.html. Viewed on 17th July 2008.).
Behind the scenes, the 'Caliphate''s usual spin–doctor William Heidrick was adding to this public disinformation campaign, and refused to alter his stance even after the true facts emerged: "The statement of June [?] stands." (William Heidrick 20th October 2008).

"That’ll learn ye!"
— Bertolt Brecht

In summary, the O.T.O. fell under suspicion — not for the first time — of being part of a paedophile conspiracy. I had placed certain information at the disposal of those who’d made the accusations, to see if they could prove their allegations were true (they couldn’t.) The O.T.O. filed complaint, and I was acquitted.

Finally, it must be asked just why the O.T.O., having been accused of child-abuse, saw fit to employ a Swiss lawyer who had had to resign from the civil service because of similar accusations (although he was completely exonerated)? In another court-case this lawyer defended his client by using arguments that the Swiss laws against paedophilia infringed that client’s human rights as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The same lawyer sought to get the verdict reversed on the basis of establishing the supposed cultural value of the website run by the producer of paedophile pornography.

It seems an odd strategy, to say the least: on the one hand, the O.T.O. takes a lot of trouble to dissociate itself from accusations of paedophilia among its members — and on the other, employs a lawyer who has claimed anti-paedophilia laws are contrary to human rights.